Originally posted by lucifershammerRubbish. The predictions made by Copernicus' model were far superior to the previous efforts.
Maybe - but he had no evidence to support his viewpoint over competing theories. Quite the opposite - all the scientific evidence available at the time with the technology available preferred those theories over his.
Originally posted by no1marauderThats in Relativity theory there is no center. There are other theories now that suggest even the UNIVERSE isn't the center of the universe!
The second statement is utterly meaningless and contradictory. The Universe encompasses all frames of reference and has no center.
There are newer theories by the likes of Lisa Randall that all the problems inherent in the big bang theory will prove to go away if one thing is present in our universe that we so far cannot detect, but may in fact be able to discern in a few more years by analyzing the cosmic background radiation in sufficient detail, such studies have already pinned down the age of the universe but more detailed studies may find another scientific cliffhanger: the unequivical detection of a spin to the entire universe. This would put things in a totally differant light for one thing showing an actual preferred direction in the universe, maybe not a center but certainly an AXIS, the axis of spin. Proving this will pretty much kill the idea of the big bang which cannot produce a spinning universe. Of course it is completely recognized att this is only conjecture and is awaiting proof but it is certainly both falsefiable and provable if the data exists in the CBR. There are already anomolies in the present reading of the data that suggest a possible axis like scenerio is already in the data but its weak in its present form so more powerful instrumentation, new space probes and ground based observatories pin down the cbr ever more finely, now defined in parts per million of deviation of the temperature of the background radiation, that 2.73deg C that we talk about as the tempurature of the universe. Every digit we extend that map gives us more data and if it is shown evidence of spin, we are in a differant era scientifically speaking so don't dismiss such ideas as a center or a unique center or similar concepts out of hand. We ALL may be proven to be wrong as much as we admire Einstien and Alan Guth and friends, they may prove to be wrong or at least incomplete.
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhousePerhaps, but LH specified "From the perspective of modern relativity."
Thats in Relativity theory there is no center. There are other theories now that suggest even the UNIVERSE isn't the center of the universe!
There are newer theories by the likes of Lisa Randall that all the problems inherent in the big bang theory will prove to go away if one thing is present in our universe that we so far cannot detect, but may in fact b admire Einstien and Alan Guth and friends, they may prove to be wrong or at least incomplete.
1 edit
Originally posted by xcomradexLH was claiming the scientific evidence at the time supported Brahe's theories over Copernicius and Galilleo's. Apparently very few scientists at the time agreed (even though in many areas of Europe this was putting you under threat of torture and death as a heretic).
in the scientific community yes....
Originally posted by no1marauderFor objects in curved spaces, every point can indeed be the centre.
I suggest you read the article rather than giving your flawed conclusions on what the authors meant. Saying every point is the center of an object is nonsense. Saying every point can be considered the center of the universe is similarly nonsense.
Consider an "object" with a uniform mass distribution that completely covers a [spherical] Riemann space. In this space, every point would indeed be the/a centre of mass for the object.
In fact, this is one of the most common conceptions of the Universe - which is why it does not have a unique centre and is homogenous and isotropic on the largest scales.
As I said before, I suggest you leave the science to the scientists. Or, at the very least, do some study before making scientific judgments.
Originally posted by scottishinnz1. We're talking about Galileo, not Copernicus.
Rubbish. The predictions made by Copernicus' model were far superior to the previous efforts.
2. By the time Galileo adopted the Copernican model, Brahe had developed a model that was mathematically equivalent to Copernicus's model within the Solar System.
The difference was outside the Solar System. Copernicus's model predicted stellar parallax, Brahe's model predicted there would be none. None of the astronomical observations of the time showed stellar parallax - that wouldn't happen for nearly 150 years (give or take). Ergo, from a scientific perspective, Brahe's model was superior to Copernicus-Galileo's given the available data.
Originally posted by no1marauderWhich areas of Europe besides Italy? You said "many".
LH was claiming the scientific evidence at the time supported Brahe's theories over Copernicius and Galilleo's. Apparently very few scientists at the time agreed (even though in many areas of Europe this was putting you under threat of torture and death as a heretic).
Originally posted by lucifershammerIt's a point of grammar, not science. It is indeed absurd to say that every point of something is the centre, although every point may be a centre depending on your focus. Or if you prefer, the centre can only be at one point at any given time.
As I said before, I suggest you leave the science to the scientists. Or, at the very least, do some study before making scientific judgments.
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderWho says scientists at the time were always thinking scientifically?
LH was claiming the scientific evidence at the time supported Brahe's theories over Copernicius and Galilleo's. Apparently very few scientists at the time agreed (even though in many areas of Europe this was putting you under threat of torture and death as a heretic).
Present the data and the two models to any modern scientist - the only reason to adopt the Copernican-Galilean model would be simplicity (i.e. Ockham's razor). However, the issue of stellar parallax would over-ride simplicity and any modern scientist would adopt the Brahean model (or, at the very least, suspend judgment between the two) until evidence of parallax became available.
EDIT: Or, at least, evidence of the vastness of the Universe or something else that might explain the absence of parallax.